UNITED
NATIONS,
December 21, more
here Ė
With the
Taliban said
to be taking
control of
Sangin in
Helmand
Province, on
Monday UN
enovy to
Afghanistan
Nicholas
Haysom provide
the Security
Council and
press with his
overview of
developments
in 2015.

He
said too much
is being made
of ISIS
presence in
the country.
Inner City
Press asked
him if ISIS,
as reported,
has a radio
station now in
Nangahar
Province. He
said hasn't
heard it, but
in any event
there are more
radio stations
in
Afghanistan.

Inner City
Press asked
him about
Sangin,
specifically
about the
Deputy
Governor of
Helmand saying
on Facebook
that his
troops don't
have enough
ammunition.

Haysom
said if Sangin
does fall it
is
significant,
but he is not
sure that has
happened. On
the killing of
six U.S.
soldiers
serving with
NATO by Bagram
base, he said
he knew what
he heard in
the Council: a
suicide bomber
on a
motorcycle.

The fall of
Kunduz for two
weeks was
raised by
nearly every
speaker; the
U.S. bombing
of the
hospital there
was raised by
some. Several
diplomat told
Inner City
Press they
found Haysom's
breifing
surprisingly
or too upbeat.
But from a
press
perspective,
he remains one
of the SRSGs
most
accessible,
tirelessly
answering
questions.

When
for example
the UN's envoy
on Yemen
issues happy
talk
statements, he
has largely
banned the
press from
questioning
him. Haysom
takes
questions, as
does his
deputy Mark
Bowden. This
is to their
credit.

Back
on October 5 aafter
repeated
airstrikes by
the US
destroyed the
MSF hospital
in Kunduz
killing
doctors and
patients, the
UN Security
Council has
been notably
silent,
apparently
waiting for
the US
investigation.

The
US on October
5 said that
Afghanistan
chose the
target. This
recalls the
October 2
statement
about deadly
strikes in
Yemen:

"We
are deeply
concerned
about recent
reports of
civilians
killed in
Mokha, Yemen
on September
28. We
were also
shocked and
saddened by
the deaths of
the Yemen Red
Crescent
Society
volunteers in
Taiz on the
same day. We
take all
credible
accounts of
civilian
deaths very
seriously and
again call on
all sides of
the conflict
in Yemen to do
their utmost
to avoid harm
to civilians
and to comply
with their
obligations
under
international
humanitarian
law. The
United States
has no role in
targeting
decisions made
by the
Coalition in
Yemen.
Nevertheless,
we have
consistently
reinforced to
members of the
Coalition the
imperative of
precise
targeting. We
also have
underscored
the importance
of thoroughly
investigating
all credible
allegations of
civilian
casualties. We
call for an
investigation
into these
reported
civilian
casualties and
for the
findings to be
reported
publicly."

So Yemen is
the Saudis'
fault; Kunduz
is the
Afghans'.
Meanwhile the
President of
the UN
Security
Council for
October, asked
about the
Kunduz
bombing, said
that Obama has
spoken of an
investigation.
Would this
approach be
taken to other
countries'
strikes?

US-based
Associated
Press, in
reporting on
the bombing,
corrected its
story with this
disclosure
at the bottom:
"This story
deletes a
reference to
weaponry in
the hospital
windows as
seen in AP
video after
further review
of the images
cast doubt on
whether they
were rifles
and a machine
gun or simply
charred debris
from the
bombing."

In UN beyond
the Security
Council, the
sequence of
statements of
condemnation
began with
Rights
Commissioner
Zeid, then Ban
Ki-moon, then
Aid Chief
Stephen
O'Brien. Some
wondered why
not the UN
Department of
Political
Affairs, which
runs the UNAMA
mission in the
country,
headed by
American
Jeffrey
Feltman.

Obama chimed
in, saying
that he's
asked the
Department of
Defense to
keep him
informed of
the
investigation.
Imagine, some
asked, if the
new strikes in
Syria caused
such carnage:
would saying
"we are
investigating"
be enough?

And still, as
of 3 am on
October 5 in
New York,
there was no
statement by
the UN
Security
Council.

On US Sunday
morning
television on
October 4,
former US
military
figure Jack
Keane said it
must have been
an "errant
missile" or
mis-targeting.
But why then
did the
attacks go on
for an hour,
even as MSF
called the US?

This
was followed
on October 4
by statement
by the acting
Kunduz
governor that
the hospital
was a Taliban
base. MSF
fired back:

"MSF
is disgusted
by the recent
statements
coming from
some
Afghanistan
government
authorities
justifying the
attack on its
hospital in
Kunduz. These
statements
imply that
Afghan and US
forces working
together
decided to
raze to the
ground a fully
functioning
hospital with
more than 180
staff and
patients
inside because
they claim
that members
of the Taliban
were present.

This amounts
to an
admission of a
war crime.
This utterly
contradicts
the initial
attempts of
the US
government to
minimize the
attack as
'collateral
damage.'

There can be
no
justification
for this
abhorrent
attack on our
hospital that
resulted in
the deaths of
MSF staff as
they worked
and patients
as they lay in
their beds.
MSF reiterates
its demand for
a full
transparent
and
independent
international
investigation."

On August 15,
2014 UNDP
belatedly
specified that
"there is an
ongoing
investigation
related to
issues raised
in documents
published by
Inner City
Press" - but
again uses
this as a
rationale for
the lack of
response not
only by UNDP
but also the
UNAMA mission
and UN
Department of
Safety and
Security.

On fifty five
days later,
despite two
more requests
from Inner
City Press,
UNDP has
nothing on any
results of its
investigation.
It has
provided its
response to
the October 6
release by the
US Special
Inspector
General for
Afghanistan
Reconstruction
-- which says
(other) audits
will be
released by
the end of the
year.

When will any
of these
audits,
including one
promised in
early
September
about Rwanda
ghost
consultancies,
be released?

Inner City
Press asked at
the October 10
noon briefing,
then in
writing: "this
is a request
for UNDP's
response to
SIGAR's
allegations --
and for the
results of the
probes UNDP
answered on
August 15 then
in early
September,
about
Afghanistan
and Rwanda."

The latter two
have yet to be
answered,
other than
"let me check
and I will get
back to you."
On SIGAR, UNDP
says "we will
make publicly
available an
audit of our
oversight of
the monitoring
agent before
the end of
this year."
(The rest
should go here.)

On Rwanda
ghost
consultancies,
UNDP told
Inner City
Press on
September 3,
"The results
of the
investigation
will be
available once
it is
complete." It
has not been
made
available; nor
has any update
yet been
provided.

In it, the
same Colonel
Bashary who
threatened he
would not
tolerate these
accusation
turns up on
the list of
double
payments.

This
publication
follows four
days in which
UN spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric,
formerly
UNDP's
spokesman, had
not said
whether an
audit cited as
a
justification
for not
answering is
the troubling
audit
completed in
February 2014.

After Inner
City Press
asked again on
August 15,
UNDP's Dylan
Lowthian
provided this
response,
which we
publish in
full:

The
'Security Gap
Project'
(SGAP) which
you have
previously
referred to
was
established to
enhance
security for
all United
Nations
personnel
working in
Afghanistan.
SGAP supported
the Government
to develop
dedicated
protection
services to
the United
Nations to
enable
reconstruction,
development
and
humanitarian
activities to
be carried
out.

SGAP
closed at the
end of 2013.
An audit of
the project
was carried
out by Grant
Thornton
beginning in
October 2013
and was
completed in
January 2014.
Upon
completion,
the audit was
issued in
February 2014
and in-keeping
with our
commitment to
transparency
and
accountability,
was
subsequently
published on
the UNDP
global
website, where
it is publicly
available to
download.
Audits are an
essential part
of our control
mechanisms.
They are
conducted in
order to
identify both
strengths and
weaknesses in
our programs
as a way to
increase our
overall
performance.

There
is no second
audit of the
SGAP project.

As
outlined by
the Deputy
Spokesperson
at the
briefing on
Friday 8
August, there
is an ongoing
investigation
related to
issues raised
in documents
published by
Inner City
Press. In
order to avoid
jeopardizing
the
investigation
process, the
details of
investigations
are kept
confidential
and very
limited
information is
made available
to offices
outside the
UNDP
Independent
Office of
Audit and
Investigation,
until the
process of
gathering
relevant
evidence and
fact-finding
has been
completed.
Should the
matter be
substantiated,
the evidence
gathered by
the Office of
Audit and
Investigation
will form the
basis of
remedial
action.

We'll have
more on this.
For now, Inner
City Press is
informed that
now "the heat
is on at the
Kabul office"
-- this is
called a
cover-up, and
retaliation
against (the
wrong)
whistleblowers.

The
UNDP
Independent
Office of
Audit and
Investigation
COMPLETED an
audit of this
Closing the
Security Gap
on February
12, 2014,
Report Number
1251, here.

That report
noted
"incomplete
recording of
expenditure
incurred in
2012. Salaries
were not
charged to the
Project for
the first
five months of
2012; lack of
appropriate
audit evidence
on fuel
charges
amounting to
$60,715 and
rent expenses
of $13,589;
overstatement
of indirect
program
support costs
by $21,737."

First, it was
and is
unacceptable
for this UN to
say it will
not respond to
troubling
documents
because it is
conducting its
own audit or
"investigation,"
with no
completion
date named and
no commitment
to make it
public. The
new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
is opposing
and seeking to
reverse this
UN descent
into
obfuscation
and
stonewalling.

Inner
City Press:
last week
there was some
back and forth
about the UNDP
(United
Nations
Development
Programme)
programmes in
Afghanistan
that resulted
in Farhan
[Haq] on
Friday saying
that an audit
is ongoing,
and while the
audit is
ongoing, there
will be no
comment.
At least
thatís how I
interpreted
it. But,
Iíve looked
into it and it
turns out that
there was an
audit that was
completed of
this very
program called
ďClosing the
Security GapĒ
project,
finished in
February of
this year by
Grant
Thorton.
It made a lot
of negative
findings, butÖ
it wasnít
clear to me,
since UNDP
never directly
answered the
questions, is
this audit
thatís being
cited the old
audit?
Is there a new
audit?
If thereís a
new audit of
the same
programme, how
much was paid
for the former
audit?
And can you
explain how
itís
appropriate
for the
Secretariat to
not answer
questions
about DSS
[Department of
Safety and
Security] and
UNAMA [United
Nations
Assistance
Mission in
Afghanistan]
by referring
to a UNDP
audit that may
already be
completed?

Spokesman
Dujarric:
My short
answer is,
show me what
you have, what
youíre
referring to
and Iím happy
to look into
it because Iím
a little
confused by
the number of
audits myself.

Inner City
Press
immediately
emailed the
audit to
Dujarric,
along with
these three
questions:

1) is
this the audit
Farhan / UNDP
were referring
to at Friday's
noon briefing
and justifying
not answering
questions
about DSS and
UNAMA?

2) if
a second audit
of the Closing
the Security
Gap Project is
underway, why?
And, either
way, how much
was paid for
the Grant
Thorton Audit?

3)
This is a
requests for
the
Secretariat to
respond to the
references to
DSS and UNAMA
in the
documents
Farhan was
responding to
on Friday.

There was no
answer. Inner
City Press
asked Dujarric
again on August
13:

Inner
City Press:
Iíd asked you
on Monday
about this
UNDP audit
that was cited
as a reason
they were not
answering a
questions
about
[Department of
Safety and
Security] and
UNAMA [United
Nations
Assistance
Mission in
Afghanistan].
Have you been
able to find
out from them
whether this
February 2014
audit was the
one that
theyíre citing
now or is
there a new
audit?

Spokesman
Dujarric:
I havenít had
a chance to
actually
follow-up but
I will.

Two
day later,
nothing. So
Inner City
Press asked
yet again.

Before
publishing any
of the
documents,
Inner City
Press posed
questions to
five UNDP
spokespeople.
But none even
confirmed
receipt --
including
Abdel-Rahman
Ghandour, the
spokesperson
who belatedly
responded to
Inner City
Press'
previous LOTFA
exclusives.

What
changed, other
than Inner
City Press'
subsequent
reporting on
UNDP
Administrator
Helen Clark's
layoff
campaign, and
these new
troubling
questions?

The
questions were
sent on August
5 to the
following,
without
response for
72 hours: lead
spokesperson
Dheepa Pandian
(out of the
office from
August 1 to
18), Mila
Rosenthal and
Helen Clark's
personal
spokesperson
Christina Lo
Nigro.

After Inner
City Press
asked UN
Deputy
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq to
reply about
the UN
Secretariat's
own role, Haq
on August 8
read a
statement from
UNDP -- there
will be no
answer pending
a UNDP audit.
Video
here.

This is pure
stonewalling.
And can Ban
Ki-moon's UN
Secretariat's
Department of
Safety and
Security and
UNAMA Mission
hide behind a
UNDP
investigation
that may never
be public?

After Haq
refused
another Inner
City Press
question,
after the UNTV
cameras turned
off, Haq told
Inner City
Press that
UNDP refused
to answer the
August 5
questions,
below, due to
"your people
skills." Inner
City Press
deals
perfectly well
with numerous
diplomats at
the UN and
many others --
but UNDP and
some UN
officials
don't like
hard questions
and think they
can simply
stonewall, in
the UN's Zone
of Impunity.

Seventy two
hours in,
while the UN
Secretariat of
Ban Ki-moon
said it
wouldn't
answer about
the role of
its own
Department of
Safety and
Security and
UNAMA mission
while UNDP
answers, August
6 and 7 video
here --
UNDP had
provided no
answer at all.

This despite
UNDP
Administrator
Helen Clark
having been
subject to
formal
governmental
requests about
related UNDP
irregularities
in Afghanistan
in May. Is
this any way
to run for UN
Secretary
General?

On
August 5,
Inner City
Press
exclusively
published this one,
linking it to
the LOTFA
scandal: an
official "was
again advised
that it may be
illegal for
salaried
police
officials to
take cash
payments to
augment their
salaries" but
the adviser
was told it
was "no longer
my priority
under LOTFA
and that I was
no longer to
address these
issues with
DPII or DSS."

This and the
other
documents
indicate that
little was
fixed, that
UNDP goes
after
whistleblowers,
and does not
follow up even
when for
example it is
involved in
visa fraud.

Inner City
Press on
morning of
August 5 asked
no fewer than
four
spokespeople
at UNDP,
including the
personal
spokesperson
for UNDP
Administrator
(and UNSG
candidate)
Helen Clark
for their
response to
the below.

Both UNAMA and
UNDSS are run
by Ban
Ki-moon's
Secretariat,
so Ban's
spokespeople
must answer.
UNDP's Helen
Clark herself
has refused
official
inquiry about
these
irregularities.
So on August 6
Inner City
Press asked
UN deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq:

Inner
City Press:
The payments
by UNDSS
(Department of
Safety and
Security) and
UNAMA (United
Nations
Assistance
Mission in
Afghanistan)
in Afghanistan
to members of
the Ministry
of Interior
and other
Afghan forces
that are
already under
full salary by
the
Government.
Various
documents have
come out that
show an
internal UNDP
(United
Nations
Development
Programme)
whistle blower
seeking to
raise these
issues within
UNDP because,
I guess,
because as the
country team,
or whatever.
But the
documents
list, they
name UNDSS,
they name
UNAMA, and
basically the
person was
told, ďDonít
raise this
anymore.Ē So,
I was
anticipating
you to say
ďAsk UNDPĒ.
And I have
more than 24
hours ago. I
donít have any
answer from
them. But I
want to ask
you, because
the documents
are not just
about UNDP,
but about DSS
and UNAMA, is
itÖ what are
the rules? Is
it UNís,
DPKOís
(Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations),
DPAís
(Department of
Political
Affairs) and
DSSís
understanding
that Afghan
forces
shouldnít
receive out
double
payments. If
this
information
came to light,
I think it
did, what was
done about it?
Thatís my
question to
you. I donít
know if you
get an answer
today. Is it
possible?

Deputy
Spokesman Haq:
As Iím sure
youíve
anticipated,
and indeed you
said you
anticipated,
yes, Iím aware
that UN
Development
Programme is
in touch with
you on this.
Theyíve
informed you
that they will
get back to
you. And so,
we will first
have to wait
for what their
reply is.
First ask
them.

Inner
City Press:
How long --

Deputy
Spokesman: No,
no. Itís no
use trying to
get the two of
us talk at
cross purposes
with each
other. UNDP
will get back
to you.

That UNDP "is
in touch with
you" was and
is not true:
there has been
no response at
all. The
statement UNDP
"will get to
you" remains
unfulfilled.
This is
today's UN
system -- even
when UN system
staff unions
wrote to Ban
Ki-moon about
Helen Clark,
and Inner City
Press repeated
asked about
the letter,
there has been
no response.

Here is what
Inner City
Press asked on
August 5, no
answer:

This
is an Inner
City Press
Press request
on deadline
for UNDP's
comment /
response to
the following
narrative
provided to us
by UNDP
whistleblowers:

UNDP
purchased
$100,000 in
fuel for a
special police
unit and it
was discovered
that some or
all of the
fuel was
stolen by the
police. The
project
manager -
chief
technical
adviser for
the project
refused to
purchase
another
allocation of
fuel due to
this reported
corruption.
Refusing to
purchase this
additional
fuel caused
problems
between the
project
manager -
chief
technical
adviser and
the chief of
UN security in
Afghanistan.

This
followed with
reports that
several
vehicles
purchased by
this same UNDP
project and
given to this
same special
police unit
were not being
used for the
unit but had
instead been
given as
political
gifts or other
reasons to
other offices
of the Afghan
government.
After giving
these vehicles
to higher
ranking
officials the
Colonel of
this special
police unit
was promoted
to General.

The
project
manager -
chief
technical
adviser
reported this
and nothing
happened. As
part of the
review which
discovered
this the
corruption of
payments made
by the UN
security
office in
Afghanistan to
the special
police unit
was also
discovered and
reported.

This
is also a
request for
UNDP response
/ comment on
another issue,
of visa
overstay, also
on deadline:

UNDP's
staff from
Afghanistan
have not
returned to
their duty
station after
being granted
visas to
attend/participate
in the recent
UN Games in
the USA. UNDP
supported the
official/G4
visas for all
of these
Afghan
nationals and
now they have
remained
behind in the
USA... How can
the
organization
justify
sending a
dozen people
half-way
around the
world to
compete in 'UN
Games'? How
many of them
were given
business class
tickets since
the travel
exceeds the 9
hour standard?
Is this a
proper use of
public monies?
How can an
office so
critical to
the
development of
Afghanistan in
this time of
change see it
as beneficial
for a dozen of
their staff to
go on a paid
junket to the
USA?

1.
Lailuma
Shirzad
(procurement)
- overstay in
USA.

2. Abdul Hamid
Karimi
(procurement)
- presumably
in UK

3. Idrees
Sherzai (HR) -
went to US,
but crossed
the border and
is now in
Canada

4. Shahkhalid
Yousafzai -
went to US,
but crossed
the border and
is now in
Canada

On the visas
we can for now
add: There are
3 more from
ELECT Project
and 3 to 4
from
Information
Communications
and Technology
Unit whom
whistleblowers
say have also
overstayed
their visas.
We plan to
have more.
Watch this
site.